The appeal [of PolitiFact] is clear: it seeks to protect the reporters from charges of bias while giving the work of political judgment and analysis a scientific aura. And, let’s be honest, it also makes the job easier for reporters who can’t be bothered to learn enough about the facts of the matter at hand to judge the issue themselves.

Cuts in newsrooms and a desire not to appear biased have led to an outsourcing of fact-checking to PolitiFact. We need more news orgs doing this work, not fewer (and not just blogs).

via The Hard Truth About Fact-Checking | The New Republic.

Here’s a thought experiment: Everyone over age 12 when YouTube launched in 2005 is now able to vote.

What happens when — and this is inevitable — a generation completely comfortable with remix culture becomes a majority of the electorate, instead of the fringe youth? What happens when they start getting elected to office? (Maybe “I downloaded but didn’t share” will be the new “I smoked, but didn’t inhale.”)

This is why understanding the intersection of copyright, culture, and technology is not just a worthwhile pursuit — it should be a prerequisite for future policymaking.

via No Copyright Intended – Waxy.org.

A GT professor notes all of the great learning activities the wikis enabled, and ties it squarely to the idea of constructionism. As a space where knowledge is collectively built and refined, wikis are a natural fit for this teaching style. It’s an approach that I’m personally invested in supporting (I’m helping to build a tool here at UW to do it).

The point that interests me most is the tie between law and constructionism. While some might say that the shutdown happened because “it’s the law,” I would argue that this is oversimplifying complicated legislation. In fact, I would argue that unclear cases like this are really one institution’s interpretation of the law.

What’s the connection to constructionism? While the legal system is designed to work out ambiguity, it can’t scale to answer every single question under its domain. Its cases like this were we collectively determine the boundaries of the law based on our decisions. GT has made its choice in how to construct FERPA, but its far from decided law. I would argue there is space for balancing the intent of the law with what it is designed to protect — learners (who need to do their learning in a variety of ways).

More reading:

• Georgia Tech Wipes Class Wikis From Web – Wired Campus – The Chronicle of Higher Education (paywall?)
• How Georgia Tech Has Shown the Perils of SOPA – e-Literate

Other than the American Library Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has perhaps done the most to give “the public” a seat at the copyright law negotiating table (as the 1976 Copyright Act is continually being revised through legislation and Executive action). From the outside, however, the organization appears to be a bit “old school.” The model of donating money to fund lawyers to mount defenses and to argue at the copyright table, in my opinion has a limited value.  Additionally, the number of issues that the EFF involves themselves in (the list of their causes is here, on the right) perhaps waters down their ability to fight specific fights on the intellectual property front.

There are, however, a large number of people, lawyers, and scholars who are interested in each of these issues.  In many cases, their interest extends to expertise and perhaps passion about these issues. I see this as a great, untapped resource.

In my work with open source communities (most specifically, Drupal), I have seen how a hive mind can attack extremely complex and systemic problems. Often, only one or two people have a grasp on a full project. Yet, a large community is available to identify existing bugs, suggest (and debate!) how to fix them, and to actually do the work of making changes.

Copyright (in addition to all of the other issues the EFF is involved in) is a similarly complex problem, but perhaps one where more coordinated action might have more success in bringing true change to the law. To use another analogy, the “linux approach” to organizing multiple communities of interest to work together on individual issues might work better than the “microsoft approach” of unilaterally attempting to speak for the public interest.

As Litman said some years ago, “our copyright policy is becoming our information policy.” Something as important and complex as an information policy is worth distributing the workload on — and I think the EFF is a group with enough clout to make it happen. Funding lawyers for legal defenses is absolutely necessary, but the need for that defense will decrease if a coordinated public outcry succeeds in changing the law.

The fight over tethering (or using a cell phone to access the internet on a nearby computer) might appear at first blush to be a classic company-wants-to-charge-more vs customer-wants-to-pay-less battle. At its heart, however, the quarrel might be said to be over control of consumer devices — or more specifically, what one might connect to a phone. AT&T and their gang likely do not want customers to know that this is a battle that they have already lost.

The history

Carterfone

As you may know, phone service in America operated as a natural monopoly and was regulated by the FCC.  A condition in that monopoly allowed AT&T to be the sole provider of telephone equipment, and to prohibit devices from being attached to a telephone (and thus the network).

No equipment, apparatus, circuit or device not furnished by the telephone company shall be attached to or connected with the facilities furnished by the telephone company, whether physically, by induction or otherwise. (FCC Tariff Number 132)

The Hush-A-Phone and Carterfone devices were responsible for pushing the limits of this rule. Most notably, the inventor of the Carterfone (a device for extending the range of a telephone — which might be very useful on a large Texas ranch) put his own money on the line to fight AT&T and the FCC to get the rule changed. He was eventually successful in convincing the FCC to overrule the device-prohibiting tariff. The common parlance for the decision is that “any lawful device” might be connected to the network.

Carter’s invention has been credited with stimulating non-AT&T phones, services, and most importantly, devices like early “acoustic coupler” modems. This is perhaps an example of how the least controlled products and services push adoption, and ultimately innovation.

(For an excellent and brief rundown of the history, please read Any lawful device: 40 years after the Carterfone decision.)

The rub

One might reasonably think that using a smartphone to connect a computer to the internet sounds very much like what is described above. I would go further – using an existing account is functionally equivalent to yesterday’s acoustic coupler. A smartphone should essentially be considered a potential modem for a computer.

What’s holding everyone back is that wireless carrier’s contracts and acceptable use policies prohibit “unauthorized” tethering. While private companies are free to make contracts with their customers, I would argue that they are not free to universally ban a practice that has been permitted for 50 years.

AT&T uses security as a rationale, stating:

Examples of system or network security violations include but are not limited to … using manual or automated means to avoid any use limitations placed on the IP Services.

The question

Should a computer connected to the internet via a smartphone be counted as “any lawful device?” Other than the economic harm of loss of additional charges and the potential harm of increased cellular network load, does tethering cause any harm to the network.

There have been efforts to renew the Carterphone decision for the Internet age. Now that AT&T and Verizon have renewed their efforts against tetherers who do not pay the fee, these efforts should be renewed. For those that are ok practicing a bit of civil disobedience, there are options (I do not take responsibility for any impact this might have on your contract).

Tethered iPhone